Seaeagle

Eh what? . The MiG-29 version in question (9.12) is very much a "cold war era aircraft" and there is plenty of open source material to simulate it. As far as I can gather, there were other reasons for ED deciding to put it on hold. Besides, an aircraft being older does not necessarily mean that its easier to find documentation or get permission to make it - e.g I seem to remember Chizh saying that the Su-24(any version) was a complete no-go in that respect.....and thats a much older design that the MiG-29. Edit: Sniped by MiG21bisFishbedL

I cannot remember how its simulated in DCS, but the real MiG-29 does have a speed limitation for the air brake - according to the Luftwaffe flight manual its 540 KIAS. I.e at speeds above this the air brake will not deploy and if already deployed, a blow-back feature will cause it to retract under the force of the airflow(in order to protect the actuators and the panels from warping.) As already mentioned by others, the two other limitations are: - landing gear extended (due to danger of the lower brake panel striking the runway during landing) - carriage of the centerline external fuel tank (cannot recall the exact reason for that). But then 540 KIAS corresponds to ~ 1000 km/h IAS and since you said that you didn't have the gear extended and that your flight speed was "about 600", that leaves the bit concerning the centerline tank

Well I don't know what goes on in DCS and I would agree with you that it sounds odd if it happens consistently. Well thats the question - I am also a little doubful that IR seekers are programmed with such sensitivity fidelity in DCS. The R-27ET is really not about range, but rather about energy. Rear aspect targets can be seen from much longer ranges by the IR seeker, while your typical IR missile(R-73 or AIM-9) doesn't have the energy to take full advantage of this if closure rate is low or negative. Well like I said it can happen, but it sounds odd if it consistently goes dumb immedeatly after launch against a target that doesn't react to it. I doubt it.

It is. Just like the R-73, the R-27ET is pure IR homing and its IR seeker needs to lock on to the target before you get launch authorisation. So the acquisition range of the IR seeker is the limiting factor and in a head-on situation, this is quite short due to the target's main heat emmission(engines) being obscurred by its airframe. This in turn can also cause the seeker to loose its lock after launch, which may be what you are experiencing. Generally speaking - don't use IR missiles for straight head-on engagements

IIRC for more precise controlability, the Blue Angels F-18s have a modified flight control system with springs which require quite a lot of extra force to be applied to the stick - I also heard that they don't wear G-suits when flying their displays, so I can well imagine that the physical requirements are extreme.

Yes and for several other as well. Exactly.

That could work, but... See this is where reference to a launch system/NATO designations becomes a problem . Because when a missile is shared by both a land based- and a naval SAM system in DCS, the same missile entry is being applied -so if e.g. the 9M330 comes with a display reference to; "Tor-M [SA-15]", then this will also be displayed for a 9M330 launched by the Kinzhal system onboard warships......which is not ideal to say the least. So with the current system, the only solution would be to ditch those system/NATO references and just use the missile designation alone. Alternatively we would need mirror entries for those shared missiles, but then that would probably also be required for more accurate naval SAM systems in the future - i.e. from them dark corners of my mind(when modding these in the past) I seem to remember that, when shared, the naval SAMs are employed using the radar/system properties of the land based "cousin".

Yes I understand, but I think this is better suited for the encyclopedia(which BTW is another aspect of DCS that could do with a major overhaul). Yeah thats also why I included the NATO names. But it is actually a little bit of a "flight sim bias" - I mean they are not used for aircraft and the missiles they fire don't come with display names like; "MiG-29 Fulcrum A - R-27R Alamo A" Yup. Yes I agree. Well I am no good with land based SAM systems, so I don't know much about their composition.

The rationale behind my suggestion is to keep display names as short as possible, while providing accurate unit designations. I am somewhat out of the loop as far as DCS is concerned, so I don't know exactly how they are used now. But earlier on, the display names where used in all sorts of cirdumstances like in-game action labels, debriefings etc, where those very long winded ones were awekward and looked silly. So I left out "Project"(or "Pr.") from the Russian designation and also " - class" from the NATO reporting name for the above reason. IMHO they are not needed, and I see no reason for including Rus codename either - same way as I don't think we need "F-15C Eagle" or F-16C Flying Falcon" for aircraft . Anyway, the above proposal is the user friendly version - Ideally I would just ditch the NATO part entirely and just use native designations for everything regrdless of origin......but I doubt that would acceptable. Why? - I see no reason for US display names to be less accurate than the Russian ones. AFAIK the official US designation system doesn't use the name of the first ship in the class(like in "Arleigh Burke class"), but just "DDG-51", so putting "Arleigh Burke" in brackets has the same function as NATO reporting names for the Russian units - unnecessary for those in the know, but helpfull to those who are less familiar with the world of warships. Well my main interest is with the naval units, so I haven't thought about other unit types like SAMs, except when they relate to ships as well .....like considering that naval- and land-based SAM systems often share the same missile type, the display names for the missiles shouldn't contain referencecs to a particular launch system. But I agree that the above example looks both excessive and illogical....following the system in my proposal, it would probably be something like.. S-300PS[SA-10] - 5N66M SR ..as an example. I agree that the "SAM" bit is redundant, while the exact variant of the S-300 shuould be specified (I cannot remember if that search radar is used for the S-300PS though).

Just to chime in; In my opinion, there is no need for complicated solutons such as optional display modes or drop down boxes. Its quite possible to make short and concise display names that include both "native" designations as well as the NATO reporting names. For the Russian naval units I would propose the following format; Rus type & designation [NATO type & reporting name] Optional individual unit name(s) for singletons/mirror entries TAVKR 1143.5 [CV Kuznetsov] "Admiral Kuznetsov" TAKR 1144.2 [CGN Kirov] "Pyotr Velikiy" RKR 1164 [CG Slava] "Moskva", "Marshal Ustinov", "Varyag" SKR 1135M [FFG Krivak II] ...etc. Sub variants of a class would simply be separate entries - e..g. SKR 1154 [FFG Neustrashimy] "Neustrashimy" SKR 1154.1 [FFG Neustrashimy] "Yaruslav Mudry" For US ships it could be something like; DDG-51 flgt I [Arleigh Burke] DDG-52 "Barry", DDG-61 "Ramage" DDG-51 flgt IIA [Arleigh Burke] DDG-82 "Lassen", DDG-85 "McCambell" ..etc.

Yeah exactly - you be hard pressed to do better job of it with any kind of cutting tool .

Yup. Anyway, according to a post on the Russian section("aviation accidents") by Chizh, the footage is not from a combat sortie in Ukraine as title suggests, but actually from a low altitude training flight in Belgorod, Russia during which the aircraft hit a power line.

Su-25SM by the looks of it.

I have no idea, but doubt that its going to make much of a difference in regards to documentation.

...but you do it anyway. You do know that the Mi-28 is in service with the Iraqi airforce and has been used extensively in combat.....right?

Yes and "Запасн" in this case meaning "standby" (rather than "reserve" or "spare").

Not really "fake" though is it? - as I recall it was in development in the late eighties for the MiG-31M and was basically an R-33 with a bigger engine and an ARH seekerhead. As far as I can tell, the RVV-BD is exactly the above mentioned R-37 design being revisited.

Greenland? - whats that got to do with "USA maps"?

Those are not active radar homing heads though, but passive radar heads for the R-27P/EP and Kh-31P respectively. Edit. Sniped .

Indeed. But I meant more in terms of there now seemingy being a desire to do something about it, which hasn't been the case for many years. A proper map for the purpose and better damage models for ships, is a good start especially if the latter also comes with introduction of countermeassures. The Nanuchka class was in Flanker 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if the P-120 "Malakhite" missile for it still remains in the code to this day.

Well as Northstar said, we do have such a unit in DCS - namely the Tarantul III class, which is equipped with Moskit missiles. True - but both this and the above mentioned small missile ships are sort of "generic" coastal defence assets, that exist in many places and not really specific to the map in question. The Kola Peninsula is very much about larger ocean going submarines and surface combatants, because its the only place from which the USSR had direct access to the Atlantic ocean and ice free ports to operate from. You are of course right and I would have said the exact same thing a week ago. But I think that anyone who has had some fun studying the Kola peninsula with Google maps, would have noticed just how many submarine bases there are, so I don't know.

Hmm between the announcement of the Kola Peninsula map and that quote, I have to say that - for the first time in decades - I am becoming moderately optimistic about the prospect for naval warfare in DCS World. But we will see - I just hope that the bit about a wider improvement to ships' damage model also addresses ships' defence capabilities - i.e. countermeassures and ECM and isn't merely in response to DCS Hornet owners complaints about the effect of their Harpoons and HARMs in anti-shipping missions.

Yeah it is. The name is a leftover from the days of Flanker 2.0. I am not sure if there was even a Krivak II by that name in the Black Sea at the time, but for the past couple of decades there has only been a single one in the Russian Black Sea fleet, and that is called "Pytliviy"(#808). There was also a single Ukrainian unit; U132 "Sevastopol", but that was scrapped long time ago. I personally don't mind stating the name of a unit along with designation/classification if its a "singleton" - i.e. where there is only a single vessel of the type(like the "Kuznetsov") or if the configuration of the modelled unit makes is uniquie in its class(like "Pyotr Velikiy"), but neither is the case with the Krivak II in DCS. Yes that could work.

Yes agree - though for the sake of simplicity, I think I would ditch the Russian codename and just make it something like; "SKR Pr. 1135M (FFG Krivak II)". I.e. Russian classification and designation first(since its a Russian ship) and NATO classification/codename after, so everyone knows what it is. BTW I believe it should be "FFG" rather "FF", since the extra "G" is for "Guided[missiles]", which applies the the Krivak. Yup thats right - in its upgraded form, the Russian designation is URK-5 "Rastrub".

Bingo! Thats precisely the impression I got as well reading about the N001VE/P radar upgrade on NiiP's website(which unfortunately doesn't seem to be available anymore). Namely that the original radar "infrastructure" is retained for the original armament package, while compatibility with the R-77/RVV-AE is provided via a by-pass channel to a completely separate subsystem with a new radar mode for the RVV-AE(and only that). IIRC N001 upgrades can be supplied in an A2A only option(with just RVV-AE addition) as well as one, which as you said, also includes serveral A2G modes/compatiblity with guided A2G munitions. No I don't think so either. The above does not suggest that there is any integration between the new and old radar modes such as the ability to use individual modes/submodes of the old radar routine for the RVV-AE, so the question is whether the new A2A targeting routine for the RVV-AE includes an optional STT mode.....which I doubt(why would it?). There seems to be a common misperception that the RVV-AE could be deployed via the existing N019/N001 radar modes and that the new mode is merely for providing simultaneous engagement of two targets(without automatic transistion to STT). But according to the description of the N001VE/P, it is a requirement for using the weapon and "dual targeting" is not even a standard feature of the mode, but only something that it can be expanded to if desired by the customer.